3
3
0
From: Marine Corps Times
Your military paycheck is getting smaller.
It's happening despite raises in military pay every year, military advocacy groups warn. And they say it will keep shrinking if Pentagon officials get their way.
Critics say the Pentagon's intensifying zeal to hold military raises under the rate of average private-sector wage growth is threatening to resurrect an old specter: a so-called "pay gap" that some say slowly drains away the purchasing power of military families.
"It's insidious, because troops are still seeing a 'raise' in their pay," said retired Air Force Col. Mike Hayden, director of government relations for the Military Officers Association of America. "But your dollars don't go as far. You don't have the same discretionary income as before."
Over the years, Pentagon officials have consistently downplayed such concerns, saying basic pay is just one aspect of a robust pay-and-benefits package that stacks up very well against the private sector when considered in total, even with the recent smaller basic pay raises.
During the rollout of the White House's 2016 defense budget request in early February, Air Force Lt. Gen. Mark Ramsay, the Defense Department's director of force structure and resources, sought to reassure troops, stating: "We are all about our people."
But, he added, "Dollars we saved in pay and compensation ... help balance out readiness and capability."
Critics say that won't matter if troops feel unappreciated and leave the ranks. The Air Force Sergeants Association says the recent pay decisions have "re-opened the wound of a pay gap" and threaten retention. The Association of the U.S. Army has labeled pay equity one of its top concerns in coming years.
Lagging behind?
The 2016 defense budget request calls for a 1.3 percent increase in basic pay, 1 percentage point below the estimate of average private-sector wage growth next year. If approved, it would be the third consecutive year troops would get raises lower than their civilian counterparts.
For 2014 and 2105, service members received a 1 percent bump in basic pay — the two smallest raises in the history of the all-volunteer force, dating back to 1973. Next year's proposed raise would be the second-smallest in that time period.
According to MOAA's calculations, the gap has vanished only once, for a single year — 1982, when a massive 14.3 percent catch-up raise for the troops was approved in an effort to compensate for the parsimony of the 1970s. But in 1983 and beyond, military raises again lagged civilian pay growth to an extent that the gap grew as high as 13.5 percent in 1998 and 1999.
Above-average raises again narrowed the gap over the first decade of this century, but it has never been smaller than 2.4 percent, from 2010 through 2013. This year, it has widened for the first time since 1999, growing to 3.2 percent.
MOAA and other critics estimate that a 1.3 percent basic pay raise next year that lags private-sector wage growth would widen the gap between military and civilian pay to around 5 percent, an annual salary difference of about $1,500 for most midlevel enlisted troops and around $3,000 for midlevel officers.
And if the Pentagon's long-term plans are approved, that gap could rise steadily over the next four years, approaching double digits, MOAA says. Hayden noted that when the gap peaked at over 13 percent in the late 1990s, it took almost a decade of compensation corrections to deflate.
"Once you start capping pay, it becomes so easy to keep doing it until you really hurt retention," he said.
Hayden said MOAA is already hearing anecdotal evidence of troops bailing out of the service for civilian life mainly because of compensation trims.
Pentagon officials have repeatedly told Congress the lower pay raises are not ideal but are not crippling, and once again are disputing suggestions of a significant gap between military and civilian pay.
They have also noted that a focus on troops' paychecks does not consider other pillars of military compensation such as housing benefits free health care and heavily discounted prices at base commissaries.
However, the Pentagon's budget plan calls for further cutbacks in housing allowances so that troops cover about 5 percent of their costs out of their own pockets; suggests that prescription co-pays may rise again under the military's health plan; and seeks to trim back subsidies for commissaries, driving up prices and shortening store hours.
Taking a fresh look
In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, incoming Defense Secretary Ash Carter noted that "compensation and benefit costs must be balanced with readiness and modernization requirements to ensure we maintain the highest quality, ready, and modern military force."
In coming weeks, Carter will return to Capitol Hill for more budget hearings at which he will defend the lower pay raise proposal.
Last year, House members pushed to have the military pay raise at least match private-sector wage growth, but accepted a lower pay raise after negotiations with the Senate.
Members of both chambers promise a fresh look at the issue this year, along with the long-term personnel changes recommended in the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission report.
Hayden said he is hopeful that his and other groups can successfully lobby lawmakers to block the Pentagon plans this year, even while military leaders argue that the billions saved by the pay changes over coming years could fill critical needs elsewhere.
"The question is, when is enough going to be enough?" Hayden said. "We need the military to speak out about the negative impact this has on their wallets too. Once you start trimming back on pay, you're starting to threaten readiness."
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/benefits/pay/2015/02/16/pay-gap-insidious/23355935/
Your military paycheck is getting smaller.
It's happening despite raises in military pay every year, military advocacy groups warn. And they say it will keep shrinking if Pentagon officials get their way.
Critics say the Pentagon's intensifying zeal to hold military raises under the rate of average private-sector wage growth is threatening to resurrect an old specter: a so-called "pay gap" that some say slowly drains away the purchasing power of military families.
"It's insidious, because troops are still seeing a 'raise' in their pay," said retired Air Force Col. Mike Hayden, director of government relations for the Military Officers Association of America. "But your dollars don't go as far. You don't have the same discretionary income as before."
Over the years, Pentagon officials have consistently downplayed such concerns, saying basic pay is just one aspect of a robust pay-and-benefits package that stacks up very well against the private sector when considered in total, even with the recent smaller basic pay raises.
During the rollout of the White House's 2016 defense budget request in early February, Air Force Lt. Gen. Mark Ramsay, the Defense Department's director of force structure and resources, sought to reassure troops, stating: "We are all about our people."
But, he added, "Dollars we saved in pay and compensation ... help balance out readiness and capability."
Critics say that won't matter if troops feel unappreciated and leave the ranks. The Air Force Sergeants Association says the recent pay decisions have "re-opened the wound of a pay gap" and threaten retention. The Association of the U.S. Army has labeled pay equity one of its top concerns in coming years.
Lagging behind?
The 2016 defense budget request calls for a 1.3 percent increase in basic pay, 1 percentage point below the estimate of average private-sector wage growth next year. If approved, it would be the third consecutive year troops would get raises lower than their civilian counterparts.
For 2014 and 2105, service members received a 1 percent bump in basic pay — the two smallest raises in the history of the all-volunteer force, dating back to 1973. Next year's proposed raise would be the second-smallest in that time period.
According to MOAA's calculations, the gap has vanished only once, for a single year — 1982, when a massive 14.3 percent catch-up raise for the troops was approved in an effort to compensate for the parsimony of the 1970s. But in 1983 and beyond, military raises again lagged civilian pay growth to an extent that the gap grew as high as 13.5 percent in 1998 and 1999.
Above-average raises again narrowed the gap over the first decade of this century, but it has never been smaller than 2.4 percent, from 2010 through 2013. This year, it has widened for the first time since 1999, growing to 3.2 percent.
MOAA and other critics estimate that a 1.3 percent basic pay raise next year that lags private-sector wage growth would widen the gap between military and civilian pay to around 5 percent, an annual salary difference of about $1,500 for most midlevel enlisted troops and around $3,000 for midlevel officers.
And if the Pentagon's long-term plans are approved, that gap could rise steadily over the next four years, approaching double digits, MOAA says. Hayden noted that when the gap peaked at over 13 percent in the late 1990s, it took almost a decade of compensation corrections to deflate.
"Once you start capping pay, it becomes so easy to keep doing it until you really hurt retention," he said.
Hayden said MOAA is already hearing anecdotal evidence of troops bailing out of the service for civilian life mainly because of compensation trims.
Pentagon officials have repeatedly told Congress the lower pay raises are not ideal but are not crippling, and once again are disputing suggestions of a significant gap between military and civilian pay.
They have also noted that a focus on troops' paychecks does not consider other pillars of military compensation such as housing benefits free health care and heavily discounted prices at base commissaries.
However, the Pentagon's budget plan calls for further cutbacks in housing allowances so that troops cover about 5 percent of their costs out of their own pockets; suggests that prescription co-pays may rise again under the military's health plan; and seeks to trim back subsidies for commissaries, driving up prices and shortening store hours.
Taking a fresh look
In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, incoming Defense Secretary Ash Carter noted that "compensation and benefit costs must be balanced with readiness and modernization requirements to ensure we maintain the highest quality, ready, and modern military force."
In coming weeks, Carter will return to Capitol Hill for more budget hearings at which he will defend the lower pay raise proposal.
Last year, House members pushed to have the military pay raise at least match private-sector wage growth, but accepted a lower pay raise after negotiations with the Senate.
Members of both chambers promise a fresh look at the issue this year, along with the long-term personnel changes recommended in the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission report.
Hayden said he is hopeful that his and other groups can successfully lobby lawmakers to block the Pentagon plans this year, even while military leaders argue that the billions saved by the pay changes over coming years could fill critical needs elsewhere.
"The question is, when is enough going to be enough?" Hayden said. "We need the military to speak out about the negative impact this has on their wallets too. Once you start trimming back on pay, you're starting to threaten readiness."
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/benefits/pay/2015/02/16/pay-gap-insidious/23355935/
Posted in these groups: 
Military Pay
Pay Cuts
Military Pay Pay Cuts
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 20
2
2
0
Do I think the discussion in this article is a big deal? Not too much...but here's the thing: Not a year goes by that we don't hear about our pay, retirement, medical, education, housing and other benefits being targeted to help save the Gov money. My beef with the budget roller-coaster is simple. There are many unnecessary programs still going and wasteful spending happening. It doesn't make sense to me to target service members and their families before cutting these things out.
(2)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
The problem is our pay is easily targeted...Defense spending is the biggest DISCETIONARY budget item, meaning of all the things the President and Congress can do to limit spending, the DOD's budget is the largest easy thing to touch. Even though Defense is less than 4% of the budget things like Social Security (over 25% of the budget) and welfare programs/entitlements (Nearly 30% of the budget) are far harder to cut and have way too many interest groups attached to them. The Democrats don't want to cut entitlements because that's how they attract their core voters and the Republicans don't want to cut Social Security because that age block is their core group. Neither party is as concerned with actual foreign affairs and defense as they are with gaining and maintaining power
(1)
(0)
Maj (Join to see)
My whole issue with funding is the unnecessary buys at the end of the fiscal year. If you don't spend it all you get less and less each year so units a literally waste money buying televisions they don't need OR your funds are pulled back to the wing months before the end of the fiscal year and now you can't even afford paper.
(1)
(0)
Suspended Profile
Before cutting "military pay" you need to understand the parts of the military budget. Military pay doesn't exclusively mean salaries as you would think in the civilian world. Rather, it includes things like pensions, training days for the reserves, and travel expenses. So, I'd be skeptical when someone claims doomsday when we start discussing a cut in military pay. They could be trying to protect their pensions.
Do I think we should cut military pay? Yes, we should cut some pensions. The biggest expense causing a deficit each year is not acquisitions, health care, or current salaries; rather it is the pension payments and pension accrual cost. We save pensions for jobs with the least transferable skills to the civilian world like combat arms positions and cut pensions for those with administrative support jobs. It's a win-win. The government doesn't abandon the combat soldier to fend for themselves after years of self-less service and we save the taxpayers dollars from those soldiers that don't need it. Like in Catch 22 , if your sane enough to get a cushy job in the military, you should be sane enough to get a civilian job and the government does not need to help you as a veteran.
We could also change the pay grades and factor in "social income". For instance, instead of paying bureaucrats on staff significantly more than a line soldier based on rank, we could factor in the position at hand. We could pay them the same salary ,but say the fact you don't have to ruck march and roll in mud is part of your "social income." Or, the privilege of administering policy can also be part of your "social income". It is a way of cutting "overhead" instead of cutting the direct labor.
Do I think we should cut military pay? Yes, we should cut some pensions. The biggest expense causing a deficit each year is not acquisitions, health care, or current salaries; rather it is the pension payments and pension accrual cost. We save pensions for jobs with the least transferable skills to the civilian world like combat arms positions and cut pensions for those with administrative support jobs. It's a win-win. The government doesn't abandon the combat soldier to fend for themselves after years of self-less service and we save the taxpayers dollars from those soldiers that don't need it. Like in Catch 22 , if your sane enough to get a cushy job in the military, you should be sane enough to get a civilian job and the government does not need to help you as a veteran.
We could also change the pay grades and factor in "social income". For instance, instead of paying bureaucrats on staff significantly more than a line soldier based on rank, we could factor in the position at hand. We could pay them the same salary ,but say the fact you don't have to ruck march and roll in mud is part of your "social income." Or, the privilege of administering policy can also be part of your "social income". It is a way of cutting "overhead" instead of cutting the direct labor.
SGT Brian Watkins
Sacrificing Administration pensions vs. Combat Arms pension is probably the worst idea I have ever heard. I know quite a few people that were enlisted 03xx or 11x series that are getting paid high 5 to low 6 figure salaries right now (CONUS) in the public and private sectors. They had the discipline and knowledge to continue to improve upon the skills they learned in the military, added education, and made moves from there. You are basically saying that because you work in finance, as a Reserve Officer... you don't rate the same benefits as an Active member that does their job 24/7/365?
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
1
1
0
I don't much worry about the yearly pay raises. Don't get me wrong after ten years you are talking a 10% pay increase at 1% a year and that is great. I am more concerned with the BAH cuts coming soon, depending on the area you live this could create a hardship for some. Soldiers should not have to worry about reevaluating their living situation once they PCS for the government to save a few pennies.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
SGT William Howell
Sir as military we pay every day with blood. I think somebody else needs to step up to the plate for a change.
(0)
(0)
SGT William Howell
It is true that we don't pay with blood every day, but every member will if needed. Name another "Job" were into harms way is the norm. Still I am pretty sure that the government gets a bargain for every member. How about we get rid of contractors and do our own cooking, cleaning, and servicing our equipment? War tax is a good idea!
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Do we need to go into the relative risk rates by profession? (Taxi driver and roofers are really brave people in that case)
But a war tax would not be a bad idea. I mean it is not like they actually fight in the wars, the could at least foot the bill.
But a war tax would not be a bad idea. I mean it is not like they actually fight in the wars, the could at least foot the bill.
(0)
(0)
2
1
1
This is dumb. Of course our raises are getting smaller, so is our numbers and so is the DoD budget. I think people are just frustrated with our elected officials. They are the only ones that don't seem to be suffering. I think folks are just tired of them telling us how we need to do more with less, but they aren't giving anything up. I haven't read anything that states they are going to pay us LESS, they are just lowering our raises...we ARE still getting raises, just smaller ones.
(2)
(1)
SFC (Join to see)
It's not that our pay is literally getting smaller, its everything is becoming is more expensive and our pay is not increasing at a rate to keep up with this increase. This is how pay is technically becoming smaller and the average military family will not be able to afford as much as they once were. My issue with the elected officials is that vote to give themselves raises which meet or exceed the increased cost of living where as they continue to vote to give service members the smallest raise possible.
(0)
(0)
SPC(P) Jay Heenan
Why would you vote me down for my comment? My point was they aren't directly decreasing our pay, they are decreasing our raise. Sure, I agree with what you said about how are raises not meeting cost of living increases lowers our pay, but I still don't get the down vote...
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I'll be quite honest. I am living proof anyone can be a Major..I graduated with a Crim degree and had to get a waiver as I didnt have a high enough GPA in my major lol....The point-17 years of service-11AFS, 6 of that AFS from deployments and MOBs in the reserves..Even the most difficult/ stressful staff jobs are a cake walk (minus combat zone deployments) in comparison to the civilian sector. Even having a few weeks of 17 hour days is balanced out with tons of 4 day weekends and weeks of 8 hour days..most folks still find enough time in the workday to blow two hours on FB..A job that provides decent retirement, basically 2 full months of leave/ holiday weekends..name a civilian Job where mid level management makes over 100K a year and doesn't have to provide real KPIs, deliverables in the form of Productivity/ TE..and has a Crim degree for education..
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I watched several strong medics get RIFed when we were cutting down our ranks due to the budget. We are well compensated for what we do (sorry, but I don't know any EMTs/RMAs that make near what I do on the outside). Yes it is disappointing that our raises are lessening, however if it is what it takes to keep the mission going, so be it. As long as they don't continue to view compensation as the only cutting point, I am willing to take a little less of a raise to make sure that people aren't fighting for a job.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
.
0
-5
5
All I can say is in 1 year, they can stop paying the Military. I'll be retired, they can find some other sucker to underpay, overwork and continuously screw over.
(0)
(5)
SFC (Join to see)
Congrats on making being a SSG after 10 years of service, I think I was a SFC by then.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
As for all the SGT's that commented and saying I'm the reason the Army is the way it is, you couldn't be more wrong. I'm disgusted that the Government see's our contribution to this country as pretty much nothing. Toxic leadership at the lower levels might have something to do with this giving soldiers a chance after popping hot on a piss test, failing pt test, being overweight, automatic promotions, lowered standards for NCO's, I'm pretty sure that has something to do with the lack of good Jr. NCO's.
Now lets talk about my career, I've put the Army and this Country first at every turn. I volunteered for deployments, I've done everything to make this organization a great organization. My reputation as a Non Commissioned Officer speaks volumes. My soldiers continuously exceed the standard and raise the bar, so to answer the question why I'm still a SFC, because for most of my career I cared. I never allowed any of my soldiers to get screwed over, but in today's army you have to bow down, kiss some butt and do the commands dirty work to get ahead. Not my style right is right and if something is right I'll support it, if something isn't right, I can't help you.
As for Congress, how many Christmas', Thanksgivings, Birthdays, Childs first steps, childs first words, Anniversary's, how many mortars have blown up around them, how many sniper shot's where sent at them? Who are they to continuously screw the Military because we need to balance the budget, but they have billions to send to Afghanistan in aid?
Now lets talk about my career, I've put the Army and this Country first at every turn. I volunteered for deployments, I've done everything to make this organization a great organization. My reputation as a Non Commissioned Officer speaks volumes. My soldiers continuously exceed the standard and raise the bar, so to answer the question why I'm still a SFC, because for most of my career I cared. I never allowed any of my soldiers to get screwed over, but in today's army you have to bow down, kiss some butt and do the commands dirty work to get ahead. Not my style right is right and if something is right I'll support it, if something isn't right, I can't help you.
As for Congress, how many Christmas', Thanksgivings, Birthdays, Childs first steps, childs first words, Anniversary's, how many mortars have blown up around them, how many sniper shot's where sent at them? Who are they to continuously screw the Military because we need to balance the budget, but they have billions to send to Afghanistan in aid?
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Yeah wow SGT Byron Sergent, National Guard? You know what gets my goat? A Non Commissioned Officer who does not present a trim military appearance in uniform.
(0)
(0)
SSG Stephanie Hall
I hear you SFC Cummings. That I can understand and agree with. The comment that started this dialogue does not match your latter response. All in the interpretation :-)
I got out after 10 years because I kept getting injuries that prevented me from training with my soldiers. That was in 2001. I already saw what you are talking about. I have also spent many holidays on deployments. I watched NCO's who could care less about themselves, career or soldiers, waiting for retirement. I also saw the new breed of soldiers that were coming in and I didn't like what the Army was turning into. Society sends us these lazy, entitled kids. You'll find something you can feel proud of again. Good luck to you!
I got out after 10 years because I kept getting injuries that prevented me from training with my soldiers. That was in 2001. I already saw what you are talking about. I have also spent many holidays on deployments. I watched NCO's who could care less about themselves, career or soldiers, waiting for retirement. I also saw the new breed of soldiers that were coming in and I didn't like what the Army was turning into. Society sends us these lazy, entitled kids. You'll find something you can feel proud of again. Good luck to you!
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google